Confirmed Signing with Link: [SJS] Brent Burns (8 Years, ~8M AAV)
- Thread starter cody275
- Start date
Too long ? Sure, but it always is. Price you pay for a great player when you are looking to win.
Also, it appears in San Jose players continue playing at a high level even in their advanced years generally, must be something in the water.
Also, it appears in San Jose players continue playing at a high level even in their advanced years generally, must be something in the water.
mouser
Business of Hockey
Out of curiosity I compiled up stats on the ages defensemen have historically played in the NHL to see at what age they depart the league.
Criteria:
- Seasons since 1990-91.
- 40+ minimum games played. No other performance criteria.
- Age is of 2/1 (hr.com default)--part of why age 18 looks lower then you might expect if it had been a 9/15 cutoff.
Observations and comments:
- The final two seasons of Burns' contract on this graph would be age 38 and 39, though he is much closer to the age cutoff to be a year higher then lower (5 weeks away).
- Only 7% of defensemen that play in the NHL at age 31 are still in the league at age 39.
- Of those age 39 players I would consider roughly half of them to have had decent 2nd pairing or better performances in that season. Folks can draw their own conclusions on that though.
Criteria:
- Seasons since 1990-91.
- 40+ minimum games played. No other performance criteria.
- Age is of 2/1 (hr.com default)--part of why age 18 looks lower then you might expect if it had been a 9/15 cutoff.
Observations and comments:
- The final two seasons of Burns' contract on this graph would be age 38 and 39, though he is much closer to the age cutoff to be a year higher then lower (5 weeks away).
- Only 7% of defensemen that play in the NHL at age 31 are still in the league at age 39.
- Of those age 39 players I would consider roughly half of them to have had decent 2nd pairing or better performances in that season. Folks can draw their own conclusions on that though.
- Nov 24, 2006
- 8,455
- 15,686
Burns is a great defenceman, and kind of unique in that Byfuglien sort of way.
That said, 8 years is too long, and $8.0 million per year will be too much money a few years into this contract.
That said, 8 years is too long, and $8.0 million per year will be too much money a few years into this contract.
glovesave_35
Name
Even if you develop your own elite players you still have to pay them. I know it's hard to believe but some guys actually are worth their big paychecks. It seems this board is half full of people who would rather see their team populated with $2-$5M players. If that's the case, you probably have zero elite talent on your team.
Btw, Brian Leetch is a Hall of Famer and apparently played for your team. You should know how to spell his name.
ColePens
RIP Fugu Buffaloed & parabola
I mean... it is what it is. Nobody will like that deal towards the end of it, but the Sharks would have hated more watching Burns leave and get 7 years x more money on the open market.
Soooooo it is what it is. I don't think anyone will love it in 5 years.
Soooooo it is what it is. I don't think anyone will love it in 5 years.
MagicalRazor
Registered User
- Oct 25, 2016
- 1,529
- 599
Double edged sword , Is he worth 8 Million dollar HELL YEAH! HE IS , will he be ? He might only time can tell so don't chirp the deal , At the moment hes worth 8 million a year every god damn day only time will tell how this unfolds . Canadian lumberjacks hold value this is truth , Joe Thornton at age 38 ( last year ) Put up PPG , Age aint everything . settle the eff down Hf boards
Rumplesnipeskin
Bar Down
I thought in the last CBA that the annual compensation for a player had to be within 35% of the cap hit. So, for $8 million cap hit, his highest per year payment should be $10.7 million and the lowest at $5.3 million.
I saw in the final two years his payment combined for SB and salary was only $5 million per year. Not a huge difference but wanted to clarify the cba rules.
Am I mistaken on the range requirements between cap hit and yearly compensation? This was put in to prevent back diving deals.
I saw in the final two years his payment combined for SB and salary was only $5 million per year. Not a huge difference but wanted to clarify the cba rules.
Am I mistaken on the range requirements between cap hit and yearly compensation? This was put in to prevent back diving deals.
CrypTic
Registered User
- Oct 2, 2013
- 5,069
- 81
`
IIRC you can't have more than 35% variation from year to year and the lowest year has to be at least 50% of the highest year.
His clause, from what I remember, he has to list three teams at the start of the year. So if he wants to go somewhere at a trade deadline, he's probably going to have to revise it to give himself the best chance elsewhere to win if that was what he wanted to do. I'm pretty sure SJ is going to be his preference unless there are some extenuating circumstances. But if those circumstances occur and he wants to go somewhere, it may not be on his list given at the start of the year.
Penske
Kunitz wasn't there
- Jan 13, 2016
- 5,262
- 2
I wouldn't sign any player in the league to that contract at 32 years of age. 8 years is too much. Would rather trade them or more cash shorter term.
Last edited:
LondonKendrick
Registered User
- Jun 18, 2016
- 1,532
- 122
I think his logic is like playing a video game where you trade your stars as soon as their big contract year is about to hit and start over again..
No, not at all.
The best players hit big contracts long before 31 years of age. No problem with that at all. An eight year deal to a 27 yo is good business.
An eight year deal to a 31 yo is a pension.
There will be X amount of poor-value years following Y amount of good value years in which he is a necessary component to team success (playoff appearances = free $ for ownership). Will you be able to replace the effect he has on your playoff chances with a trade? Next year? the year after? If you figure the Sharks owner will net $2m for every home playoff game you will find Brent Burns makes a pretty low risk financial investment. You will likely profit more than enough to make up for the hindrance of a poor value cap hit in the latter years of the contract.
It was very heavily implied the the Sharks have some hand in having their players thrive as they get older. Absurd.
CrypTic
Registered User
- Oct 2, 2013
- 5,069
- 81
I think that's why most ppl agreed that the Sharks had to sign this contract if this was Burns' line in the sand. Overall, the Sharks are better off with this contract than with letting Burns walk. The question is whether the Sharks could have gotten a better contract and, if so, how much better (and at what cost in terms of things like time, goodwill, other players' reaction, etc.)? E.g., my guess is that if DW pushed, he could have either gotten slightly less money, a year or two less term, or some of the perks greatly reduced (e.g., less buyout proof, less limited NTC). I think it would probably be the latter but I don't know how important each of those was to Burns so it's pure speculation. E.g., couldn't he at least have gotten Burns to have an 8-team NTC? Burns loves the number 8. How about either less term or much lower signing bonuses so that the Sharks could buy Burns out if the contract goes really bad? That would also make him easier to trade bc other teams would have that option too.
Crazy Joe Divola
Registered User
- Jun 20, 2009
- 3,405
- 2,640
Ziggyjoe21
Registered User
Gonna be a brutal contract once Burns declines.
I'd say it's gonna be a good/fair deal for 4-6 seasons. Don't see Burns being a top 4 Dman past the age of 36.
I'd say it's gonna be a good/fair deal for 4-6 seasons. Don't see Burns being a top 4 Dman past the age of 36.
